Man From U.N.C.L.E. gun: Any SBR cases?

[Paladin]

I was thinking of the Man from UNCLE gun. It was a P-38 with detachable accessories which increased its capabilities: (1) extended barrel (and suppresser), (2) telescopic scope, (3) extended magazine, and (4) detachable folding buttstock.

When will we in CA be able to make our own CA legal modern versions based upon a Glock 19? Instead of an extended barrel and scope we could use a longslide and barrel (from a G21?) with a RDS. That?s legal right now. Glock already offers 33 round mags that fit the G19. Those will be legal if we win the Duncan case.

Are there any federal cases fighting the current federal regulations (infringements) upon detachable pistol buttstocks (SBRs)? Are there state regulations upon them too and if so, are those being challenged in court too?

https://youtu.be/WRjEornNads

https://youtu.be/4QhVGLbmtTU

[Sgt Raven]

Read Judge O'Connor's recent Preliminary Injunction for Mock v Garland (Pistol Brace) rule. He briefly touches on Pistols with stocks. If one was to follow it to its logical end, it could shoot down SBR laws.

https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/federal-judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-pistol-brace-rule/

[SpudmanWP]

According to the ATF's own 2021 data, there are 533k in use. This is before they declared in court that all pistol braces "were always SBRs" which brings the number above 10 million. The "in common use" threshold for SBRs was crossed long ago.

However, given that the NFA is a tax, SCOTUS will have to rule on the legality of that tax before we can own them outright without a tax or "permission slip".

[tenemae]

Watching the linked video, there was a strange moment where I realized "It's incredibly bizarre that what he's doing is super illegal". Like... he just made his pistol more controllable. That seems like the socially responsible thing to do. It's the still the same pistol.

Make it make sense.

[Sgt Raven]

According to the ATF's own 2021 data, there are 533k in use. This is before they declared in court that all pistol braces "were always SBRs" which brings the number above 10 million. The "in common use" threshold for SBRs was crossed long ago.

However, given that the NFA is a tax, SCOTUS will have to rule on the legality of that tax before we can own them outright without a tax or "permission slip".

If we in California could get the California SBR/Suppressor law overturned and we had to get a NFA SBR/Suppressor tax stamp to own them. That would be a huge step forward in California. If the NFA used the NICS instant check system and a FFL could provide a NFA tax stamp like a hunting or fishing license is done now. That would be an even bigger step forward in the US.

[SpudmanWP]

I see SBRs & suppressors being challenged nationwide before it can ever get done in CA, likely through the 5th Circuit. Once that happens, CA's laws go bye-bye

Who knows, maybe it will be part of one of the pistol brace cases, at least for SBRs.

[bwiese]

Paladin,
This is a multithreaded problem:

• SBRs themselves aren't Federally illegal, just taxed. You can get a gun SBR'd if your
  state law allows, etc. [I am unclear on any NFA SBR denials for people otherwise not
  prohibited from general firearm ownership at state/Fed level.]
  .
• Yeah, the requirement for notification for interstate travel w/ SBRs is onerous.
  .
• Caution is watchword... if Fed SBR status is killed totally, that may well not kill
  individual state SBR laws; some states have laws that if the gun's Fed SBR status
  & tax paid is OK, then it's OK with the state [...in other words, total elimination
  of Fed SBR status/registry would mess up individuals in various states.]
  .
• California has its own separate SBR law: originally supposedly 'harmonized' with Fed
  law, but substantive differences & divergence exist (both statutory and case law;
  ask Mr. Rooney about OAL measurements!)
  .
• If Fed 'brace' status stays same/ATF doesn't get its wish, Fed stock vs brace vs
  SBR risk disappears.
  .
• Pistol can be Fed NFA AOW'd then - legally has a non-stock brace Federally, and due
  to separate CA NFA AOW exemption, is not considerable as a *CA SBR* regardless
  of whether a brace is considerable as a stock at CA state level [which it easily can].
  .
• A CA magazine case win allows hicaps to be acquired & used CA (beyond Freedom Week
  & pre-2000 grandfathered "stayed" mag possession).
  .
• A CA AW case win allows hicaps to be used in 'featured' pistols having no fixed mags or
  compliance parts, etc.
  .
• Aside from Fed/state SBR law differences where they exist, in general SBR/SBS 'status'
  is an accidental byproduct of the run up to NFA 1934 and is essentially legislative detritus.
  
  [It's wholly unclear that few or any states might even have an SBR/SBS ban if that special
  entity were not created in NFA '34!]
  
  Originally, the NFA was gonna ban everything but 'sport/hunting' long guns - including
  handguns!... and to prevent any 'workarounds' on handgun ban SBR/SBS ban text was
  added.
  
  US AG Homer Cummings figured handgun ban wouldn't pass muster and it was pulled,
  leaving the SBR/SBS stuff still in. IIRC, a US Senator? Congressman? asked for clarifying
  'safe harbor' parameters for long guns and this is how we got all the barrel lengths/OAL
  lengths delineating SBR/SBS.
  
  But some SBR & SBS guns were so common that various 'curio & relic' guns don't require
  NFA registration etc! (14" Winchester lever guns etc.)
  
  USSC Caetano holdings establish a threshold of 200,000 meeting 'in common use' - for 2016.
  
  200K out of a population of 249million adults (prob a smaller number for citizens/nonprohibited)
  
  For 1934, US population was 134million (with ~102million adults; likely smaller number for citizens,
  nonprohibited etc). So that 'Caetano common use' threshold for 1934 is scaled to around 82000.
  
  The fleet of guns mfgd & in common use for all lawful purposes before 1934 only needs to show
  total production/sales numbers above ~82K for SBRs and SBSs: more importantly, there was
  no "THT" [text, history, tradition] of regulating or punishing barrel lengths or overall lengths for
  firearms: things like handy 'coach guns' with, say, 16" bbls and rifles/carbines with under 16"
  barrels were common USA.

I am very unclear that we want to 'dig in early' on SBR/SBS without solving AW issues first, unless
some sorta litigation on braces etc. led directly down that pathway.

[SpudmanWP]

The NFA did not ban SBRs and SBSs so the "in common use" test does not apply in '34.

However, that will likely play a part in the '86 Hughes Amendment to FOPA in which case the ratio will be different.

For the NFA, a Bruen THT challenge is a better bet as at the time the $200 was nearly a 100% tax which had no historical tradition to back it up on top of the fact that it's a tax on a right.

Once you show that the NFA tax was unconstitutional, you can then use the "But For" argument to claim that the numbers would have been well above the "In Common Use" threshold by the time the '86 Hughes Amendment came along.

[sigstroker]

I don't know kali laws like you guys do, but I cannot imagine any set of circumstances that would get rid of the sbr ban.

[SpudmanWP]

Heller's "In Common Use" test easily torpedoes CA's SBR ban. You don't even have to do a full THT test. Remember that in the oral arguments in Rahimi the DOJ admitted that once a legal principle is set, you don't need to re-argue it. Since Heller settled "In Common Use" and Caetano set a floor, there is no need for a lengthy trial. The State will push for one of course, but there is no need and the DOJ's own words will be used in all future ICU suits.

[sigstroker]

Libtard judges don't follow the law, including the Ninth Circus. Look at the douchebag judges in Trump's cases.

[SpudmanWP]

As more cases get settled and precedent gets set then higher courts will be willing to intervene when it sees a lower court getting it so wrong.

[Bhobbs]

As more cases get settled and precedent gets set then higher courts will be willing to intervene when it sees a lower court getting it so wrong.

There is no basis for saying SCOTUS will get involved. The circuits hold the power and the circuits are anti gun.

[SpudmanWP]

History would disagree.

I can easily see "In Common Use" cases being decided in Per Curium decisions so as not to waste time. That is exactly what happened in Caetano after the Heller decision.

The DOJ's oral arguments make it an even stronger possibility.

[sigstroker]

History would disagree.

I can easily see "In Common Use" cases being decided in Per Curium decisions so as not to waste time. That is exactly what happened in Caetano after the Heller decision.

The DOJ's oral arguments make it an even stronger possibility.

The Supremes did that, right? It's hard to imagine the Supremes going against the Ninth Circus on a gun control law. It's not mis-applying a law, they would have to say the kali law is unConstitutional.